tv Viewpoint With Eliot Spitzer Current October 9, 2012 5:00pm-6:00pm PDT
takes on politics. >>science and republicans do not mix. >>now it's your turn at the only online forum with a direct line to eliot spitzer. >>join the debate now. >> eliot: with 28 days until the 2012 election, we have entered the lamest of lame duck sessions. with the outcome still unclear, no one on capitol hill wants to do anything to affect their party's reelection.
today brought more bad news. president obama was pulling away from mitt romney then he flopped in the most lopsided debate of all times. and now the policy poll shows a two point lead for mitt romney. >> so even wealthy people -- would you put a cap on how much they could deduct for example as far as charitable contributes are concerned? because i have heard you mention the $17,000 cap if you will for come folks out there and i would like you to elaborate if you don't mind. >> i don't intend to lay out a piece of legislation here because i intend to work with congress. >> eliot: members of congress are already trying to form a plan of their own to avoid the upcoming fiscal cliff. on tuesday eight senator
convened at george washington's mount vernon estate to try to get a deal. one of them was chuck schumer. today he challenged a premise this tax rates at the top should come down. >> it would be a huge mistake to take the dollars we gain from closing loopholes and put them into reducing rates for the highest income brackets rather than into reducing the deficit. the reality is any path forward on tax reform that promises to cut rates will either end up failing to reduce the deficit, or failing to protect the middle class from a net tax increase. >> eliot: senator schumer suggested allowing the rates to return to the prebush rate. of course republicans were quick to pounce on shumers new
approach be old attacks. mitch mcconnell said, and i quote . . . for more on the mayhem in washington, i'm joined by one of your favorites bernie sanders,ent senator of vermont. thank you so much for joining us tonight. >> my pleasure. >> eliot: is chuck schumer right that we could challenge the premise that rates at the top should come down. >> of course schumer is right. what the republicans want to do and some democrats is lower the tax rates for the wealthiest people in this country at a time right now, when the effect of what the wealthiest people actually pay is the lowest in
decades. and even if you manage to close some loopholes you will become neutral -- you are not going to bring in any more revenue to help us deal with the deficit. shumer is right in saying we have to keep the tax rates where they are right now, then we close the loopholes, and then raid additional revenue. >> eliot: it seems to me the importance of what chuck did today was it became a premise of all of these so-called wanna be intellectuals in washington and somebody is finally standing up and saying that is bad policy. >> look eliot, let's be very clear, and after the election and the lame duck congress i'm come back and see if i'm right or not. without the slightest doubt what the republicans have in mind are
lowering tax breaks for the wealthiest in this country giving them even more tax breaks, despite the fact that we have the most inequal distribution of income than anybody else. more tax breaks for the rich. and then they want to make massive cuts in social security medicare medicaid and virtually every other family needs. that's the plan. third point they would make sever poll that i have seen suggests that that is exactly what the american people don't want. the american people have been very clear. when the top 1% owns 42% of the wealth in america, you know what, you have got to start asking those guys to start paying their fair share of taxes. when the middle class is disappearing, you can't cut
social security -- and by the way, the so-called chain cpi, one way to cut social security would not only hit the elderly and disabled it would also hit disabled veterans. you don't make massive cuts in medicaid or medicare so i think this issue is very very clear. which side are we on? are we going to protect the wealthiest people in this country, the largest corporations eliot, one fourth of profitable corporations pay nothing in taxes. we are losing about $100 billion a year because the wealthiest individuals are stashing their money in the cayman islands and other tax shelters. right now, you have guys from wall street, ceos of large
corporations, and these simpson boals guys working to come up with a proposal that will stick it to the middle class and protect the wealthy, and that's grossly unfair. >> eliot: if we send you a tape of that brilliant little statement you just said, will you send it to the president and say here is your opening comment for your next debate? [ laughter ] >> eliot: and then we won't have to worry about mitt romney doing what he did. you just nailed it on the head. that was perfect. it seems to me the white house has fallen into the same premise that you and chuck are challenging. the president has been afraid quite frankly to take them head on and say no, that is wrong. so you have to push back against the white house as well. >> look some of us have a very difficult life, we are trying to defeat romney and ryan and
right-wing extremism, and trying to buck up this president, get him to stand up and say what the american people want to hear; is that he is going to defend them take on the big money, take on wall street in a meaningful way, and protect working families. >> eliot: yep. >> so we're working in two directions. >> eliot: you are exactly right. and one little piece of evidence that what you see as the hidden or not so hidden mission of the republican party is in the short clip we played just before you came on which is orrin hatch's statement when he refers to the wealthiest people in our country as the most productive members of society. >> if our friends on wall street were all so productive why did they drag us into this horrendous recession for which they had to be bailed out by the middle class of this country.
the bottom line here is more tax cuts for the wealthy is not only obscene, eliot in my view it is really bad economics. >> eliot: so you have diagnosed it, explained it, now how do we explain it to the american public. >> i don't think you have to convince the american public of anything. what i have said -- i'm not very brave to tell you the truth. this is what every poll out there has said. and the president has to say, look i'm going to take on the big money interest take on corporate america, i need your help to stand with me against the lobbyists, and big money interest. president makes that speech he will coast to victory. >> eliot: i agree 100%.
you need the passion to do it. will joe biden bring that into the arena thursday night when he standing up with paul ryan? >> well, i certainly hope so. look, you know and i know and the american people -- or many of them know what the ryan budget is about. these are devastating cuts. the transformation of medicare into a privatization program. $770 billion in cuts to medicaid. what kind of moral outlook throws children, poor children off of health insurance in order to give tax rates to billionaires? if joe didn't decimate this guy, i would be very surprised. >> eliot: all right, you almost had a different ending to that sentence, but i'm with you. i hope he does it. i'm glad you raised medicaid and what they do to medicaid is morally impossible to defend.
from silver screens... to flat screens... twizzlerize your entertainment everyday with twizzlers the twist you can't resist. endless shrimp is our most popular promotion at red lobster. there's so many choices, the guests love it! [ male announcer ] don't miss endless shrimp, just $14.99! try as much as you like, anyway you like. like new teriyaki grilled shrimp. offer ends soon! my name is angela trapp, and i sea food differently.
is >> eliot: coming up now that a case has been brought against jpmorgan chase when will the other banks have to take responsibility in their role in the 2008 crisis. but first bill maher explains people, and nothing can explain these new musical tributes to mitt romney. when it wasn't fit anywhere else, we put it in theview finer. >> i am still glowing from last week's run away win from mitt
romney. he has the mitt-mittdom. there is still no word for it it never existed before. ♪ mitt romney has got the solution, yeah ♪ ♪ his name is mitt romney he's going to fix the problems in the usa >> romney: thank you. you too. ♪ vote for mitt romney ♪ ♪ paul ryan too ♪ ♪ they've got the r-train rolling for you ♪ >> we all know that the bureau of labor statistics are cooking the books for their buddy obama. >> there was no doubt in my mind it was under 8%. take it any way you want. >> rick, you what you are implying with your comments --
>> i'm not implying anything! >> why say it because the whole point -- >> because it was true! >> if jack welsh, legendary former ceo of general electric is aledging dishonor of with the bureau of labor statistic, you can be sure he has some hard evidence. >> i have no evidence to prove that. >> maybe it's a coincidence. >> i'm not a deliver in coincidence. >> i like god do not play with dyes. >> i don't think there are any in life. >> impossible. there are no coincidences. [♪ dramatic music ♪] >> no coincidences? your life must be a constant series of unsolved mysteries. [ laughter ] >> congratulations now you have picked up for two seasons. you should be voting republican.
>> well, that's the difference between rich republicans and rich democrats some of us vote against our interests for the betterment of the country. >> eliot: the former chair of the fcic, phil angelides joins us next. vice presidential debate. with unrivaled analysis and commentary. >> was this the game changer? is this going to change the dynamic? (vo) the only network with real-time reaction straight from the campaigns and from viewers like you. >> so keep on tweeting and maybe you'll have your voice be part of this democracy and see your tweets up on our screen. >>now that's politically direct.
schneiderman to jpmorgan chase for the fraudulent practices of morgan sterns is a series of documents that warned that numerous loan portfolios violated bear stern's own underwriting standards. what did they do with the information? nothing. the documents were released in the financial crisis inquiry's report in what caused the cataclysm of 2008. so does that mean more cases are soon to come. joining me is the former chairman of the fcic phil angelides, who guided that investigation into what caused the crisis of 2008. thank you for the fcic report the single best document that took us through that crisis. so finally, this is a good thing. >> it is a good thing. i mean you have seen these documents, and spoken about them. they are in black and white.
and it shows a pervasive practice across all banks, not just bear stearns where they were packaging, selling defective loans to investors, they knew the loans were defective and they never revealed that information to investors. >> eliot: it permitted you to see not only that the bank knew but they did nothing. and you could trace this information about therefore trace the fraud. >> but they did more than nothing. the reason they were doing the due diligence on these loans that they were buying is they wanted to see if they were paying too much for them. and now we find out through attorney general schneiderman's lawsuit that when they found out they were overpaying for this crummy stuff they were making lenders pay them some money,
which they pocketed. >> eliot: right. >> they bundled them packaged them, sold them, and never told the investors what they did know. >> eliot: and this fell down on the taxpayer's shoulders. >> absolutely. this was not just bear stearns it was citigroup deutsche bank jpmorgan, the list of all of the big institutions. this was institution by institution, and even when they knew they were very bad loans, they waved them in, packaged them, and sold them. >> eliot: will there be other parallel lawsuits? should there be? >> i'll say this there certainly should be a full scale investigation. i want to praise attorney general schneiderman, because following in your footsteps he has really been pushing the ball
up the hill, been arguing for more resources and now he has brought this case. i think it's important for the sense of american justice that the investigation continue and there should be other cases based on what we know are pervasive practices. but more than that, i think this case also shows we're butting up against the statute of limit stations on criminal actions. >> eliot: even though i agree with everything you said, there is a fair question sometimes whether you can retroactively extend the statute of limitations, but put that aside. without individuals being held accountable, will we have satisfied the american sense of justice, and changed the emotional energy that drives wall street and others in california to act this way? >> i think the american people are owed a full investigation.
but for deterrence to work it can't just be the shareholders playing the bill. it has to be people losing their jobs. there needs to be consequence. >> eliot: i think your report this is why i am such a fan, did tell that story. people should read it and internalize what hand. in order to be sanctions that would change behaviors. simply paying money will not do it. unless individual have criminal and civil sanctions held against them, nothing will help. are we making process there? >> not enough. but this lawsuit was a first step because it said this wasn't just one or two transactions,
but i still think we have work to do eliot to make sure we have civil pursuit, civil prosecutions that result in tangible consequence. >> eliot: to the individuals. >> to the individuals. >> eliot: you and i were both state officials, so we view things through the prism of hey, states act we don't feel the political restraints of washington. why has washington under both bush and obama so hamstrung in this regard? >> i don't know. i will say looking to the positive, there have been more staff personnel investigators put on the job. should have been earlier, but better late than never. and i don't know whether it's a lack of focus on the enormity of what happened to this country, but i'm hopeful while we still have time, we need to press the case.
>> eliot: >> eliot: washington often tells us let's look forward not back. but the failure to look back means you don't change behavior prospectively. how do we change that? >> i think we have to change it and demand it because in the end a cleansing process, urn earthing the truth about the past is a predicate for moving forward in a good way, and if the present course persists which is banks do fine and they go right back at it nothing will have changed. and even the biggest settlements was equal to 2% of their profits of the year. what is happening today is not working. >> eliot: you are actually right. when i was ag we would impose fines and then you would look to see how the institution reacted,
and it was almost like they shrugged their shoulders and said we'll make it back. all right. former chairman of the fcic phil angelides, thanks as always for your time and incite. you do a remarkable service for the public. >> thank you have very much. allstate sends a check. ok. [ voice of dennis ] silence. are you in good hands? unwrap your paradise. soft, sweet coconut covered in rich, creamy chocolate. almond joy and mounds. unwrap paradise.
bloc >> eliot: mitt romney condemns the policy under barack obama but praises that same policy from harry struman. that's ahead in my view. but get's first check in with jennifer grandholm in "the war room." >> we are going to start with the battle for the house. you are not going to want to miss my exclusive interview with nancy pelosi. we're also going to get ready for that big vice presidential debate on thursday, as you are, i'm sure. we're previewing what is at take, and getting incites on
our conversation is with you the viewer because we're independent. >>here's how you can connect with "viewpoint with eliot spitzer." >>questions, of course, need to be answered. >>we will not settle for the easy answers. >> eliot: mitt romney returns. behind the bellicose language hid narry nearly a meaningful policy suggestion nearly a series of bromides. governor romney repeatedly praised george marshall, a
graduate of vim, where romney delivered his speech for the vision wisdom and leadership that gave birth to the marshall plan. we all know the bold series of expenditures by the united states during the period from 1948 to 51 addition to the $13 billion stent by the u.s. in direct aid to europe between the end of the war and the initiation of the marshall plan rebuilt europe's economy. and they soon joined us in nato and became in aggregate the largest economy in the world. why is this odd? we all love the marshall plan of course. because what was the marshall plan the 2008 stimulus at a different time. but large enough to do the job. how can mitt romney praise the marshall plan if he is so disdainful of the stimulus. what was wrong with the same
concept in 2008? the $26 billion or so spent on the marshall plan is roughly the same as the $787 billion stimulus of 2009. the marshall plan was about 2% of our gdp, the stimulus was just a bit more and given the $2 trillion plus in production lost during the crisis, so have an effect as profound as the marshall plan the stimulus would v been even larger. the attacks by mitt romney ring hollow once the rhetoric is gone. romney understands that the marshall plan was critical to the recovery of europe and so to was the stimulus plan for our bounce back in 2008. so if it was good enough for europe in 1945 and worked for us
in 2008 maybe romney should stop with the fake criticism. like too much else in his campaign. there is smoke and mirrors and no substance. that's my view. ♪ ♪ ♪ i find myself at the wrong place ♪ [ male announcer ] the ram 1500 express. ♪ ♪ it says a lot about you. ♪ ♪ in a deep, hemi-rumble sort of way. guts. glory. ram.
>> eliot: who is the real mitt romney? who knows when it comes to financial regulation the etch candidate manage to remain true to one thing in denver last night, his nickname castigating while also praising parts of the president's signature reform law, dodd-frank. >> romney: this is an enormous boom for them. >> you want to repeal dodd-frank? >> romney: i would repeal and replace it. >> eliot: romney's attempt to portray the president as in the pocket of wall street is especially bold given that until now romney has carried the water for the big banks in opposing
the few regulations that would actually limit the most profitable and riskiest activities. here with me now to do the nearly possible is dennis kelleher, president and ceo of better markets, inc., a group dedicated to financial reform. thanks for coming in to completely unravel this pretzel that my brain has turned into. does he love dodd-frank or hate it? >> he makes the tv show "extreme makeover" look like a failure. he bares no relationship to either where his money is coming from nor his career. unfortunately the president didn't see fit to point it out that it didn't pass the laugh test. but if anybody knows how to give wall street a big sloppy kiss
it's mitt romney. >> eliot: let's drill down. when he said the federal government is still standing behind some of the big banks. that's true. that has been one of the big critiques you and i agree. but would mitt romney do anything about it? and if so what? >> in fairness to the president and the dodd-frank rule, that rule has the possibility to get rid of the too big to fail. but when he says he wants to get rid of dodd-frank there would be no bigger kiss than to get rid of dodd-frank. so when romney says i'm going to get rid of dodd-frank but replace it it reminds me for years we have the presidential candidates with secret plans
that never come up. all of the secret plans that these candidates have -- romney has a secret plan to replace dodd-frank, to save medicare a plan to save social security. >> eliot: let's take the boca rule where you put capital at great risk the republican party has been fighting that one tooth and nail and if there is one piece of dodd-frank that is critical, that's it. so is romney now saying he is for the vogel rule? >> it was reported today that gold sack which gave a lot of money to obama in '08 has moved all of its money to romney. much of their revenue and much
of their bonus money comes from these highly leveraged high-risk debts that they did, but that's where the huge cash and bonuses come from, and the vogel rule prohibits it. it has been more intense than anything else this rule. there is no way romney is going to support the vogel rule. >> eliot: not to delve back into the debate but why didn't the president stand up and say, wait a minute, mitt your party and you have been fighting tooth and nail against the single most important piece of this? why wasn't he confronted on that? >> because the president and his administration has been ambivalent. on the one hand they do want to reign in the excesses, on the other hand they don't want to be
perceived as being anti-business. and one of the things that has happened is equating what happens to wall street to what happens to american business and there's a huge difference but the administration has not been very tough. >> eliot: finance can make money in good times and bad times, it is a very different thing in terms of job and wealth creation and the fate of the middle class. >> right. >> eliot: and too much of our political infrastructure was taken over by finance. and i think fortunately the democratic party just as guilty in that regard. take leverage ratios where again the power has been there, the fed, treasury occ, on and on would mitt romney say anything significant about leverage? remember his deals were some of the most outrageous deals in history. >> if it wasn't for high leverage, mitt romney would probably have the net worth that
regular folks have. the 47% that -- you know, that he derides. so there is no evidence anywhere that mitt romney would be tough on wall street or get serious about ebbing these too big to fail bank. people forget the financial crash of 2008 was the worst since the great depression. he has said nothing that he would do to prevent that from happening again. >> eliot: remind me again $12.8 trillion -- >> right. and that's what it cost the country so far. >> eliot: and mitt romney hasn't explained what he would do to solve it. all right. dennis kelleher, president and ceo of better markets, inc., thank as a always for coming on